Religious Fanatic

[nPeace]

Meanwhile, all college students who bother to attend classes every day and study regularly are now "fanatics" as well. If you want to dilute the meaning of the word "fanatic" to the point that it no longer means the level of extreme it is supposed to mean, sure, I guess? Some people don't care about the English language like that (artful use of hyperbole notwithstanding of course). I'm not one of them.

I was not saying that's my belief. I was just saying how some people twist things to their advantage.

Right now Jehovah's Witnesses are labeled extremists in some nations.
Here's the definition of extremist:-
a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action.

 

[Shad]

Religious fanatic, or rational human being?
This girl was only fourteen. What do you think of her?
Do you consider her to be a religious brainwashed fanatic, or a rational thinking person?
Her experience.

Fanatic but not a dangerous one.

 

[nPeace]

That would depend upon what was more important...human life or human religious dogma.

Well, I guess that obviously means that you don't think any follower of the God of the Bible, or follower of Jesus is rational then.

The Hebrew boys given the Babylonian names Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused to bow to an idol, at the cost of their lives - being incinerated - not cooked - in a furnace.

Daniel refused to stop praying to his God, even though it meant being thrown to hungry lions.

Jesus said that anyone who isn't willing to die for his sake, and the sake of the good news, is not approved by him, or his father.

Many were willing to did by wild beast, just for having an unpopular belief - just being a Christian, or possessing a Bible.

There are hundreds of examples of men and women who were willing to die for what they believed.
Some do it because they have faith in God, and his promises.
Some do it for different reasons.

For example men and women are willing to go to war, and fight for a nation - even at the cost of their limbs, and life.
Men and women are willing to get into a vehicle and race around a track - at the risk of their lives.

The difference between this worldly view, and the believer, is that while those of the world give up their lives for their beliefs - they do so without hope - except the hope that they don't die, which they are not sure of.

The believer though, has faith that what he hopes for is sure. His faith is like an anchor for him/her - They are unwavering. The believe the promises of God are sure, and they base this on the evidence they have. Hebrews 11

I consider them rational - myself included. In fact, I consider it more rational to have a belief that one believes to be sound, than those who are willing to kill people for what they believe, or restrict them from exercising their right of choice - provided they are not murdering or raping anyone, or torturing someone.

 

[nPeace]

Fanatic but not a dangerous one.

Not rational? Why not?

 

[nPeace]

Clearly I was not speaking about that. Because there you write it correctly as your opinion, using "I think", and "People can have faith.......concepts"

Obviously I was talking about the red part. That is just your opinion AND not a fact. At best you can say "For me `faith is not a reliable path to truth`". And you could also add IMHO to it

You are right. It's @QuestioningMind duty to prove his opinion is correct.

 

[nPeace]

You make a claim, so you prove it. If you can't prove it then it's obvious it's just a meaningless claim. You started to make a false claim, you must prove. Don't twist things.

Just making random claims, that make no sense and expecting others to prove they are wrong is silly.

I have better things to do then solving your self created non sense claims

[by the way I already proved that your claim is wrong, if you took the time to read my previous reply].

I'm glad you are seeing the problem I keep getting. Isn't it frustrating. It gets even more frustrating when they keep insisting you get on the merry-go-round, and you just want to press the stop button, but they seem to be enjoying themselves.

 

[nPeace]

Hey @Deeje

What do the JWs say about cannabis?

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989223

Your views on cannabis seem somewhat contradictory to your religious views. Is that correct?

The last article I found on how marijuana is viewed by the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses is this:
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102001483

They do not view it any different to how they viewed it in past, as far as I know.
With regard to medical use, they have not provided any specific information so far on it. I don't know if @Deeje can find any information more recent. I believe there will be information on it in the near future.

 

[nPeace]

Clearly you didn't read my response concerning the flat Earth and the spherical Earth. It clearly demonstrates that faith alone is NOT a reliable path to truth. And again, just because someone's faith MIGHT happen to lead to truth, is no more a demonstration that it's 'reliable' than flipping a coin would be a demonstration that flipping a coin is a reliable path to truth. .

I suppose that might depend on what one considers faith to be.

 

[Deeje]

The last article I found on how marijuana is viewed by the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses is this:
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102001483

They do not view it any different to how they viewed it in past, as far as I know.
With regard to medical use, they have not provided any specific information so far on it. I don't know if @Deeje can find any information more recent. I believe there will be information on it in the near future.

Hi nPeace,
I was reading the other day about the fact that over 65's are the biggest consumers of MC. It helps with so many of the problems of aging....aches and pains etc. without messing up their delicate digestive systems.

New information I am sure will have to come because all the articles regarding marijuana in the past were concerned with drug abuse not medical use. We cannot sanction recreational drug use, but Jehovah's people can and do take prescription drugs that are way more harmful and addictive than medical cannabis, which has proven to be without adverse side effects. Now that it has become legal in quite a few places, I'm sure the brothers will catch up when the time is right and they have thoroughly researched the subject. In the meantime those of us who live in places where it is not yet legal will have to bide our time and hope that sanity prevails against greed, sooner rather than later.

 

[stvdv]

This was the original claim:

People can have faith in virtually anything, even diametrically opposed concepts, so clearly faith is not a reliable path to truth.

For me faith is reliable. I do not proselytize, please give me the same courtesy. That's all I ask. Say IMHO and I am fine.

I have yet to see how it is NOT a correct claim

I will do my best to explain

If two people can have faith in diametrically opposed concepts then it's OBVIOUS that faith is NOT a reliable path to the truth.

You can grow in faith. It is not static. For me faith is a reliable path to truth. I do not proselytize. I do not say faith is needed/superior/inferior like some religions claim [or being interpreted].

Spoiler: Some thoughts, not to be used to debate on

Just some thoughts that came to mind. Maybe helpful else discard, but I did not give them to debate on.
You seem to have a point here. BUT faith is not solid, not fixed. You can grow in faith once you start on the "faith path". I do not claim "faith is a must". Faith is a personal "choice". I don't make "a religion out of faith; I do not proselytize". And I don't say that faith is superior and I don't say other ways are inferior. I do not in anyway offend or criticize your way to truth. If you claim "for all humans clearly faith is not a reliable path to truth" then you criticize my "path to truth", hence my reply. As you may have seen in some of my posts I "react heavily on people who proselytize = imposing their faith/truth on others. Therefore I have always `IMHO` at the end of my replies."

The trick in "faith is a way to truth" lies therein that "you can grow in faith", that "faith is not fixed". Now comes to mind "All ways lead to Rome", even if you "go via north pole and then south pole and have a stop over in USA and Japan". BUT I am not happy with that proverb at all, because it has in it "superiority" that Rome [Christianity] is the Truth. This is one of the proverbs I accept to put on my "reject list" as being "misleading proverbs".

It becomes JUST as reliable as tossing a coin. So are you saying that tossing a coin is a reliable path to the truth?

No, I do not say that.

Spoiler: Some thoughts, not to be used to debate on

Just some thoughts that came to mind. Maybe helpful else discard, but I did not give them to debate on.
Thank you, this is a very nice example. If you have faith in "tossing a coin" then:
a) Accidentally "tossing a coin"may lead you "to truth", like "playing in lottery" may lead you "to become a millionaire". I played the lottery once saying "God if you want me to become millionaire in this life by playing the lottery, give it your best shot. I do it once". I became a `millionaire`, not by playing this one time but by `rejecting the desire` and saving lots of money "not playing again"
b) If you have faith in "tossing a coin" this might "have you toss the coin leading to the path to truth", so the "tossing coin" being part of faith indirectly lead you to the truth.

 

[stvdv]

Meanwhile, all college students who bother to attend classes every day and study regularly are now "fanatics" as well. If you want to dilute the meaning of the word "fanatic" to the point that it no longer means the level of extreme it is supposed to mean, sure, I guess? Some people don't care about the English language like that (artful use of hyperbole notwithstanding of course). I'm not one of them.

Extreme and Fanatic are quite relative. Some enjoy "exchange bodily fluid with Tarantula" others might get a heart attack, just from seeing them

For me calling something "extreme" or "fanatic" is no problem. When calling becomes judgmental problems start, when trying to impose all respect is gone

I do my utmost best not to proselytize. There is freedom of religion. As long as they act within the Law of the country they live in, it seems fine to me. We have all been granted life, and are all free to do as we like. To impose on someone else [who doesn't harm others by their actions] I don't like. I don't do that, and I would appreciate the same courtesy.

My Master taught me that "Surrender to God" is the highest and final step in sadhana. So I fully understand that Jehova Witnesses want to follow their path.

Spoiler: Some info not to debate on:

1: Others find me extreme in what I do. So usually I don't tell others what I do

2: I find @PopeADope extreme with "bodily fluid exchange with Tarantula's". But I love to read about his "extreme ways", not a iota of judgment there. Go for it I would even say.

3: In Holland we have the Iceman. Sitting in Ice water and injecting all kind of bacteria and viruses in his body to prove that he can easily fight them off. I love those stories.

4: A New Zealand born young Dutch girl sailed around the world, solo, age 14 till 16 (518 days). That is extreme, but I love it. Of course she could have died. Hundreds of times. Much more likely probably than the girl in the OP. And age 14 !!! [Child welfare objected to it, even Dutch court objected , but luckily she won]

If I knew doctors would make me accept blood even when I object, then I might even decide to tell nobody and stop eating/drinking and leave this earth. And I might even leave a note that those doctors are responsible for me killing myself, by not respecting my personal choice, giving me no other choice then to kill myself. All in the name of "Freedom of Religion". And I might make sure that my story would reach all the newspapers "after I die", that's nice with emails, you can send them postmortem

 

[stvdv]

If that simple idea is too complex for you to grasp, there's nothing more I can do for you.

I call this belittling AND I leave it at that.

 

[stvdv]

You are right. It's @QuestioningMind duty to prove his opinion is correct.

Thank you, I almost was thinking "Am I really that crazy, seeing this so wrong".

I'm glad you are seeing the problem I keep getting. Isn't it frustrating. It gets even more frustrating when they keep insisting you get on the merry-go-round, and you just want to press the stop button, but they seem to be enjoying themselves.

This has been happening a few times to me. And it did frustrate me when I was in the middle of it. Thanks for reminding me "Isn't it frustrating", because next time I will use "my frustration" as an exercise to practice equanimity. I think I found out the reasons why some people "have this habit", so I will now test out if my new approach works [nice experiment]". I believe everything that happens is our own created karma. This time it was easy (I replied to "his reply to another person", I should have kept quiet then it would not have happened, but as I learned a lot, I am glad I did reply after all).

Many times I just say "I agree to disagree". But they don't take "no" for an answer. They seem to be on a crusade to prove me wrong sometimes. All part of the game I guess.

 

[stvdv]

The last article I found on how marijuana is viewed by the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses is this:
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102001483

They do not view it any different to how they viewed it in past, as far as I know.
With regard to medical use, they have not provided any specific information so far on it. I don't know if @Deeje can find any information more recent. I believe there will be information on it in the near future.

Interesting article.

I used to have severe bronchitis, so I could not stand smoke from young age. Then getting older I learned "smoke is bad for health", so I really avoided places with smoke.

I have no problems with drugs, but if I would need to medically use it, I would not smoke it, I would make a cake or drink tea. Works best for me. Least side effects.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I'm not sure you understand what I am saying.
I'm going to assume you know the difference between a law and a principle. Hopefully I assume right.

Just in case...
Law - Do not consume alcohol.
Principle - Consuming alcohol will kill you.

Which is greater, law or principle.
Principle right? It is a fundamental truth.

So knowing the principle, you don't need the law. Agreed?

It is useful to understand the principle or rationale for a particular law so I agree.

The principle in regards to eating certain foods seems to be the risk of contracting illness. There would have been all manner of parasites, bacteria, or viruses if the food you ate was not cooked properly. A sign of uncooked food is blood.

Another one...
Law - Don't commit adultery.
Principle - One who looks lustfully at a woman commits adultery.

Say the principle was given ten million years ago.
Does it change? No. It's a foundation - it never moves.

Ten million years into the future, after the principle is given, (just for argument sake) a new therapy which allow for absorbing alcohol into the body through the pores is introduced into the world. Pornography is introduce into the world.
Do you need a law stating, "Do not watch pornography?"
Do you need a law saying, "Do not use this therapy?

I did highlight the principle concerning blood.
Do you need a law stating, "Do not take blood through your veins?

Once again, I can see your reasoning. Thank you for taking the time to explain yourself.

The fact is we do eat blood in cooked meat as the constituents are still there within the meat despite having cooked the food properly. We've simply killed off the harmful organisms. Same deal with blood. We ensure that the human blood used for a transfusion does not have harmful organisms such as HIV, or Hepatitis. We ensure it is appropriately cross matched so as to minimise the risk of harm.

A few questions for you @nPeace , hope you don't mind.

Do you believe that people can die as a result of not having a blood transfusion?

Do you think there are always alternatives to blood transfusions that are just as effective?

Do JWs have a choice whether or not they have a transfusion? What would happen if the leadership of your church found out a member had a transfusion?

Is it better to die than to have a life saving blood transfusion?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Shad]

Not rational? Why not?

As her view on blood transfusion is based on an interpretation from a bronze/iron age text about consuming blood.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I suppose that might depend on what one considers faith to be.

Faith is belief without verifiable evidence.

 

[QuestioningMind]

This was the original claim:

For me faith is reliable. I do not proselytize, please give me the same courtesy. That's all I ask. Say IMHO and I am fine.


I will do my best to explain


You can grow in faith. It is not static. For me faith is a reliable path to truth. I do not proselytize. I do not say faith is needed/superior/inferior like some religions claim [or being interpreted].

Spoiler: Some thoughts, not to be used to debate on

Just some thoughts that came to mind. Maybe helpful else discard, but I did not give them to debate on.
You seem to have a point here. BUT faith is not solid, not fixed. You can grow in faith once you start on the "faith path". I do not claim "faith is a must". Faith is a personal "choice". I don't make "a religion out of faith; I do not proselytize". And I don't say that faith is superior and I don't say other ways are inferior. I do not in anyway offend or criticize your way to truth. If you claim "for all humans clearly faith is not a reliable path to truth" then you criticize my "path to truth", hence my reply. As you may have seen in some of my posts I "react heavily on people who proselytize = imposing their faith/truth on others. Therefore I have always `IMHO` at the end of my replies."

The trick in "faith is a way to truth" lies therein that "you can grow in faith", that "faith is not fixed". Now comes to mind "All ways lead to Rome", even if you "go via north pole and then south pole and have a stop over in USA and Japan". BUT I am not happy with that proverb at all, because it has in it "superiority" that Rome [Christianity] is the Truth. This is one of the proverbs I accept to put on my "reject list" as being "misleading proverbs".

No, I do not say that.

Spoiler: Some thoughts, not to be used to debate on

Just some thoughts that came to mind. Maybe helpful else discard, but I did not give them to debate on.
Thank you, this is a very nice example. If you have faith in "tossing a coin" then:
a) Accidentally "tossing a coin"may lead you "to truth", like "playing in lottery" may lead you "to become a millionaire". I played the lottery once saying "God if you want me to become millionaire in this life by playing the lottery, give it your best shot. I do it once". I became a `millionaire`, not by playing this one time but by `rejecting the desire` and saving lots of money "not playing again"
b) If you have faith in "tossing a coin" this might "have you toss the coin leading to the path to truth", so the "tossing coin" being part of faith indirectly lead you to the truth.

I can't say that in IMHO flipping a coin is not a reliable path to the truth. It's not a reliable path to the truth, REGARDLESS of my opinion. Faith and tossing a coin are equally effective at ascertaining the truth. The simple fact that a person can 'grow in faith' is a clear indication that it is NOT reliable. 2 + 2 = 4. IF at first faith leads you to believe that 2 + 2 = 6 and THEN it leads you to believe that 2 + 2 = 3, but EVENTUALLY your faith 'grows' to the point where you believe that 2 + 2 = 4, we've just demonstrated just how UNRELIABLE faith is for determining what is real. Heck, if your faith grows even FURTHER, eventually 2 + 2 MIGHT end up equaling 5. So according to you, what 2 + 2 equals CHANGES all depending on the 'growth' of your faith.

That's like saying that flipping a coin IS a reliable path to the truth, simply because if you flip it enough times EVENTUALLY you'll get the right answer. Of course the NEXT time you flip it you MAY get a different answer... but that just means that your beliefs are growing.

 

[osgart]

According to the Bible, faith is the evidence of things not seen, and substance of things hoped for.

Evidence of things not seen might be that i care for something, and the very real existence of that care.

Substance would be the profound insight that a care produces.

So we are definetly pursuing an unseen reality, and definetly examining the subjective experience as a gateway to a higher reality within ourselves.

The reality unseen is made of understanding and the cause and effect of understandings.

 

[nPeace]

Hi nPeace,
I was reading the other day about the fact that over 65's are the biggest consumers of MC. It helps with so many of the problems of aging....aches and pains etc. without messing up their delicate digestive systems.

New information I am sure will have to come because all the articles regarding marijuana in the past were concerned with drug abuse not medical use. We cannot sanction recreational drug use, but Jehovah's people can and do take prescription drugs that are way more harmful and addictive than medical cannabis, which has proven to be without adverse side effects. Now that it has become legal in quite a few places, I'm sure the brothers will catch up when the time is right and they have thoroughly researched the subject. In the meantime those of us who live in places where it is not yet legal will have to bide our time and hope that sanity prevails against greed, sooner rather than later.

I haven't looked into the use of Medical Marijuana Deeje. I'll probably do so later, but I will have to wait on the GB's say on it before I can give any info on what their view is on it.

Until then I only have the information they provide from research done by experts....
David Powelson, M.D., formerly chief of psychiatry, Cowell Hospital, University of California, Berkeley, at one time advocated legalizing the use of marijuana. Later, after more evidence was available, he wrote: “I now believe that marijuana is the most dangerous drug we must contend with: 1. Its early use is beguiling. The user is given an illusion of feeling good; he cannot sense the deterioration of his mental and physiological processes. 2. Its continued use leads to delusional thinking. After one to three years of continuous use, the pathological forms of thinking begin to take over the thought process.”—Executive Health Report, October 1977, p. 8.

There are things which are legalized by the state which are in direct conflict with God's word, and principles.
The scene of this world is changing, and its ruler is very crafty, so we must be careful of his crafty acts.

The GB continue to give evidence that they are that faithful and discrete slave. They always provide the food at the right time. Often taking us by surprise, but we value their eagle-like insight.

gt chap. 111 Sign of the Last Days par. 12
We're happy as we wait.